The Washington Post coverage of the football World Cup in Russia couldn't allow all the joy and good vibes to go unchallenged of course. So they found "a pipe worker named Alexander" who had a joke to tell: "An adviser comes to Putin and says, 'I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you were elected president. The bad news is that no one voted for you.'"
Now let's imagine an American adviser coming to President Trump and saying: "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you were elected president. The bad news is that you didn't get the most votes."
This has now happened five times in the United States, five times that the "winner" received fewer popular votes than any of his opponents; this insult to democracy and common sense has now happened twice within the most recent five presidential elections.
And I find the worst news is that a year and a half after Trump's election I haven't heard or read a word of anyone in the US Congress or a state legislature who has taken the first step in the process of modifying the US Constitution to finally do away with the stupid, completely outmoded Electoral College system. If it's such a good system, why doesn't the United States use it for local and state elections? Why doesn't it exist anywhere else in the world? Is it to be regarded as part of our beloved "American exceptionalism"?
The city of Seattle on June 12 voted to repeal a tax hike on large employers that it had instituted only weeks before. The new tax would have raised $48 million annually to combat Seattle's homelessness and affordable-housing crisis. The Seattle area has the third-largest homeless population in the country.
The plan had passed the City Council unanimously but was fiercely opposed by Amazon.com and much of the city's business community.
Many American cities are sincerely struggling to deal with this problem but are faced with similar insurmountable barriers. The leading causes of homelessness in the US are high rents and low salaries. A report released June 13 by the National Low Income Housing Coalition stated that there is nowhere in the country where someone working a full-time minimum-wage job could afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Not even in Arkansas, the state with the cheapest housing. More than 11.2 million families wind up spending more than half their paychecks on housing. How did America, "the glorious land of opportunity" wind up like this?
The cost of rent increases inexorably, year after year, regardless of tenants' income. Any improvement in the system has to begin with a strong commitment to radically restraining, if not completely eliminating, the landlords' profit motive. Otherwise nothing of any significance will change in society, and the capitalists who own the society -- and their liberal apologists -- can mouth one progressive-sounding platitude after another as their chauffeur drives them to the bank.
But to what extent can landlords be forced to accept significantly less in rents? Very little can be done. It's the nature of the beast. Rent control in some American cities has slowed down the steady increases, but still leaving millions in constant danger of eviction or crippling deprivation. The only remaining solution is to "nationalize" real estate.
Eliminating the profit motive in various sectors, or all sectors, in American society would run into a lot less opposition than one might expect. Consciously or unconsciously it's already looked down upon to a great extent by numerous individuals and institutions of influence. For example, judges frequently impose lighter sentences upon lawbreakers if they haven't actually profited monetarily from their acts. And they forbid others from making a profit from their crimes by selling book or film rights, or interviews. It must further be kept in mind that the great majority of Americans, like people everywhere, do not labor for profit, but for a salary. The citizenry may have drifted even further away from the system than all this indicates, for American society seems to have more trust and respect for "non-profit" organizations than for the profit-seeking kind. Would the public be so generous with disaster relief if the Red Cross were a regular profit-making business? Would the Internal Revenue Service allow it to be tax-exempt? Why does the Post Office give cheaper rates to non-profits and lower rates for books and magazines which don't contain advertising? For an AIDS test, do people feel more confident going to the Public Health Service or to a commercial laboratory? Why does "educational" or "public" television not have regular commercials? What would Americans think of peace-corps volunteers, elementary and high-school teachers, clergy, nurses, and social workers who demanded well in excess of $100 thousand per year? Would the public like to see churches competing with each other, complete with ad campaigns selling a New and Improved God? Why has American Airlines just declared "We have no desire to be associated with separating families, or worse, to profit from it."
Notes- See Mark Weisbrot, "Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras." Also see William Blum, Killing Hope, chapters on Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
- Moon of Alabama, "Mueller Indictment - The 'Russian Influence' Is A Commercial Marketing Scheme", February 17, 2018
- Washington Post, June 23, 2018
- Washington Post, June 9 and 16, 2018
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to williamblum.org is provided.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
1
